rsenk19: It is difficult to trust the word "forever" from companies like Sony...
"Yes, Canon "dumped" FD lenses just like Microsoft dumped DOS for Windows. Please note this site would never have been possible in DOS."
Well, this site appears to be running on a Linux server so I'm not sure what that has to do with anything Microsoft or DOS. If you meant that you couldn't browse it on a DOS computer you would also be wrong. It wouldn't be a great experience but it is certainly possible.
Really bad analogy ;-)
PS: there's no such thing as "DOS for Windows" unless you're talking about command shells which of course were never "dumped". The original Windows consumer "OS" was actually just a DOS GUI shell until the release of XP.
eyeswideshut: Sorry, but modern autofocus, software dependent lenses are not forever.
Takumars are forever. :-)
...or that have easily repairable moving parts that require only the skill of the technician to maintain function.
"Takumars are forever. :-)"
Too true. Olympus don't do a native micro 4/3 35mm (why?) but I don't really mind; my S-M-C Takumar 35/3.5 is a terrific performer on my E-M5II. I'm sure it would be just as good on a Sony too :-)
lemonadedrinker: That is a fine looking camera and I'm tempted to say it's nearly as fine as my Nex 7, but that would be cheeky. What interests me more is how many 'styles' of black and white picture taking there are? You can set up different degrees of contrast and sharpness on all of these cameras of course, but the thought of being able to do your own set-up covering more parameters is interesting to think about..for instance, that beautiful Kodak paper with the slightly toned look etc and a Bill Brandt effect. Endless. Anyway, a lovely camera; well done, Olympus.
"what I thought I was saying was that he visualised the image he wanted to make before taking the photo"
Then that's what you should have written :-)
I don't really care who invented the word "previsualization", all I know is it wasn't Ansel Adams so please stop attributing it to him.
PS: it really is worth reading the techniques Adams decrives in his trilogy "The Camera", "The Negative" and "The Print" before expressing opinions on them. Really.
All l done now :-)
"Olympus generally didn’t use big top-plate shutter speed dials until the OM series of 35mm SLRs"
Wow, DPR factual accuracy... not.
The original OMs like the 1/2/3/4 had the shutter control as a ring around the lens mount.
For non-critical work have found Photo Mate R2 more useful in the field on a reasonably accurate Android tablet display (a Lenovo in my case) than Lightroom on a similar sized calibrated Windows tablet.
I expected the Lenovo/R2 combo to die by the wayside after buying the Windows machine but not so; Lr is great on a "proper" PC but Photo Mate is far more user friendly on a 10" tablet.
I'll be looking a R3 in due course, and I don't expect I'll be disappointed.
You've done it again! Adams VISUALIZED the end result (the print) before making an exposure. PRE-visualization is without meaning and he neither did it not did he say he did it.
Read his books rather than googling it ;-)
Yes, he visualized his intended results before making an exposure, this was key to his technique.
Remind me what the "pre-" bit is for? Adams never mentioned it, it's just a misquotation that has stuck :-)
Adams certainly used the word "visualize", but I don't recall him ever using "pre-visualize". What would that even mean?
rwol1970: I'm still waiting for a real, affordable retro camera:
- Only manual operation- Simple light meter- No monitor (wait until you're home; if you know what you're doing you don;t need a monitor) so you have full attention for real photography
Perhaps you could also restrict it to small cards that only hold a few exposures before enforcing a change and lock ISO and colour to the card rather than the camera. Oh, and make it really hard to change partially used cards...
Or just use a film camera :-)
bovverwonder: Going to sell my E-M10 and E-M5mkII to acquire this body.
My E-M5 Mk II is going nowhere, but I have to admit I want the PEN-F even though I don't need it.
Smart move to rearrange the connectors (compared with the E-M5 Mk II) but a better move would have been to stick with a tilt LCD on both cameras, just as on earlier models.
rfsIII: I love DPR and think it has really reached greatness in the last year or two, but the whole premise of this article is wrong. When choosing a camera system, you have to start from the lenses because they are what make the photo. Cameras have always been and will always be just light-tight boxes holding a sensor (or a piece of film). But you can take five different lenses and put them on the same camera and get five different renderings of the same scene—some lenses have more pop, some are more ethereal, some are three-dimensional, some resolve more detail... It is the lens that actually gathers the light and paints the picture onto the sensor, and if you don't like the way the lenses render you're never going to be happy with your pictures. If you try to pick a camera first you risk entangling yourself in a lens system that makes you unhappy, and dooming yourself to chase the next body, and the next, in an ever-tightening spiral of financial ruination and artistic despair.
It would be most foolish to buy a camera system without establishing that it had lenses suited to your purpose. so certainly no disagreement from me on that point. I think my disagreement with your OP was your playing down the importance of the camera body ("just light-tight boxes"), an assertion with which I can't agree; the camera is much, much more important than that and can make or break the pleasure of the whole experience of making pictures.
Incidentally, you don't come across as inarticulate in any way - quite the reverse in fact. I didn't disagree because I misunderstood your meaning, I simply didn't agree with all of your assertions :-)
"He never said the lens didn't matter or wasn't primary (to the system)."
Yes he did: "you have to start from the lenses because they are what make the photo"
No further response from me on this so you can "win" with the last word if it makes you happy :-)
" if you don't like the way the lenses render you're never going to be happy with your pictures"
Perhaps. But after many decades of using cameras I realised that if a camera had too many annoyances I always found an excuse to not use it - no matter how good its lens(es).
Both camera and lens(es) are important in their own ways - and for most amateur purposes nether completely overshadows the other in relative importance.
keepreal: It is a pity that Richard Butler did not discuss dynamic range and megapixels.
When it is possible to capture 14 stops dynamic range in a single frame I might upgrade but, until then, I will continue with exposure bracketing. Also, until I start printing larger than A2 (60 cm) from near to a full frame, 12 mp will be perfectly adequate for good quality where pictures are the end product, not tables of performance figures.
I am far from alone in that the pictures in my gallery almost always are taken in good light at moderate apertures on APS-C and the subjects are static. If not for that, a better camera than my D300 might be justified.
Only a specific few camera cope well in all kinds of conditions, in which case one can understand an interest in the like of the new Nikon D5 and D500. But, if you look at the galleries of those here who have them, many appear to be using cameras way beyond their needs. I rarely find that their subject matter, equipment and results are on a par.
"many appear to be using cameras way beyond their needs"
True. But also true of almost all "luxury" (ie non-essential) items where "wants" almost always out-trumps "needs".
I often scan the comments before reading the article but not this time; instead I read the (well-written) article, agreed with virtually all of it, then started reading the comments.
"Clueless". Wow. But I think not ;-)
PS: yes, it is always Ansel Adams isn't it? Made me smile when I read that, thanks for brightening a bad day Richard :-)
b0k3h: A B&W specialist camera....without color channel control for optimal tonal shaping for best monochrome results....
BUT it allows the (flat) pictures to be sharper!!!...so the 2-cent streetographers can jack up the contrast, add fake grain, and throw on artificial vignettes in the end....
Indeed. In the film era a B&W photographer could choose to be lazy by not using filters and shoot on colour neg film, adjusting tonality in the darkroom and printing on panchromatic B&W paper.
But how many did?
Peter Del: 1 and 3 are the same
It's interesting that they all picked number 3, not the identical first image.
It must imply something about the order effecting perception but I have no idea what that might be.
Scott Tender: I really, really do not like that hinged screen. Why not the swivel screen like on the 5500? Infinitely more useful. This is a deal breaker for me.
I agree, much preferring tilt screens just like this one and disliking side-hinged screens. As an Olympus rep said to me recently about their decision to put a fully articulated screen on the E-M5 Mk II: "it's like Marmite - you either love it or hate it, there's no middle ground".
Manufacturers can't win either way on this one, but having chosen I wish they would maintain consistency.
Tons o Glass 0 Class: The raw links are a little mixed up.
Very Wise, Barney. Or Morecambe anyway :-)